Comments

First of all, Deborah Graupner and Prince Knight – excellent Voltaire and US Marines quotes. Very apt.
Alex Brooker – your comment echoed my own thoughts, and so I’m quoting it:-—————-
“The tragedy in all this is not that Charlie Hebdo have surrendered to the Islamic blasphemy laws we all have to endure, but that nobody seems to give a damn. Press coverage has been marginal, there is little to no social media discussion of the matter, all the while the mainstream media are pumping out articles telling us all how Islamophobic we all are, and how we should be more tolerant of Islam.”-—————
Well said.
I also kind of agree with Maurice here. It’s a pretty shitty world if we somewhat intelligent and semi-articulate Canadians have to rely on publications like Charlie Hebdo as an international bastion of free speech, but that’s what seems to have happened. It quickly became an international icon standing up against the erosion of intellectual and artistic freedom of expression and outright censorship even in the face of credible threats of retributory violence. It became a social media hero. But for what?
I didn’t get the whole #jesuischarlie, or whatever it was (not on Twitter, thankfully). In my view, Charlie Hebdo was doing exactly what it was supposed to do, according to the function and importance of a free press in any democratic society based on the rule of law. It republished images that were central to explaining and contextualizing a breaking news story. Charlie Hebdo only did what any half-decent news source or media outlet should have done too. But for the most part, they didn’t.
I’d never even heard of Charlie Hebdo before, and therefore had no particular opinion of it to start with. Other than noting some positive familiarities between the (former) editorial policies Charlie Hebdo, on the one hand, and The Western Standard, Macleans, Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, on the other, I don’t have any interest in it. As far as I can tell, however, the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo and mass murder of its staff and employees is its most noteworthy (and notorious) characteristic, but this is definitely NOT a good thing. All the recent criticism expressed by Canadians in response to the new editor’s announcement just disappoints me because it seems to cast Charlie Hebdo in the role of Obi Wan Kenobi, i.e., our only hope.
France is not Canada, and as it has shown over the past few decades, it employs completely dissimilar attitudes and strategies with regard to immigration/cultural/social assimilation issues. Its situation is so vastly different from ours that it’s really quite unfair to make any comparative judgments, yet we do it all the time. If we are alike at all, it’s that France is starting to suffer from an internal crisis of culture that approximates Canadians’ historical insecurities over culture, language, race, etc., generally referred to as “identity politics”.
But patriotism demands we make comparisons favouring our own country. In a free and democratic society such as ours, however, we are free to either agree or disagree and express those opinions openly. Having a free press is essential as it can (ideally) facilitate an objective arena for public debate and rational argument. Unfortunately, the (mainstream) news media is all too easily bought and/or cowed into submission by particular individuals, organizations and interests. Instead of national cohesion and unity, ethical compromises by the news media results in distrust, apathy, radicalization and further division.
We are all essentially guilty of Charlie Hebdo’s sin, because we have already allowed it to happen here in Canada. We’re just as hypocritical as we accuse Charlie Hebdo, for not holding Canadian media to task for shirking journalistic ethics and obligations. It’s all too easy to sit in judgment over the decision of the new editor of Charlie Hebdo from a position of relative security and anonymity here in Canada, if it was indeed his decision at all. So indulge me, and just take a moment to notice how most mainstream Canadian news outlets seem totally oblivious to the hypocrisy of their own reporting about the new editorial policy of Charlie Hebdo.

Absolutely Maurice. It is only an opinion, and they will do what ever they decide, and have the right to do so. It is just that what the new editor is going against the original premise of the publication, it rubs me the wrong way. But no one should stop them from however they want to proceed.

Deborah Graupner and Liza Rosie, I don’t like them any more than you do! I detest them! But freedom of speech, just like freedom of thought and freedom of the press, means freedom, period… which also includes the freedom to be selective and bias. Would you silence MSM for their bias? I would shut down CBC because they’re funded by tax dollars, but private broadcasters, just like private publishers, have the right to their bias. And satirical publications have the right to be selective in what they choose to satirize. Is it right? Is it honorable? Is it courageous? No, no and no! But if I want to claim my right to write and say what I wish, I must defend theirs… even their right to be cowards and hypocrites. Remember, we also have those same rights, which means we have the right to defend ourselves when attacked, and the right to draw attention to their hypocrisy.

I get what you are saying Maurice, and I can understand that they probably don’t want to get killed. But if they are not equal opportunity offenders across the religious spectrum, then the whole thing is mute. So the magazine Charlie Hebdo died when the gunmen entered and murdered the people who dared to make pictures of Mohammed, albeit rude pictures. If they cannot be equal opportunity offenders they shouldn’t try to publish anything, offending only the religions they know won’t slaughter them for their sacrilege. They should just stop then. And the terrorists will have won. But they should stop publishing if they will only offend the safe religions. It is worse than closing down and going home.

Maurice – if they are going to continue attacking Jewish people and Christians, then they are now doing the bidding of their evil masters. They should have shut the doors, but instead they are choosing to be complicit. I think it won’t be long and we all have to choose, to either stand for our rights and freedoms, or join the new editor and be complicit too. I am going to pray for courage, that I remain true to my faith.

I’ve said this before and I’ll repeat it now; I think Charlie Hebdo is a vile, disgusting piece of trash. I wouldn’t use it to line the bottom of a bird cage. I disagree with pretty much everything they promote. They desecrate everything I hold sacred, which means I find them very offensive. But, guess what. I’m a big boy, I can handle it. There’s no such thing as free speech unless we’re willing to stand up and defend speech that we find offensive. Charlie Hebdo may be vile and disgusting in my opinion, but they have every right to be vile and disgusting. And if I believe in basic fundamental freedoms, then I must defend their right to offend, even to offend me. Alright, having said that, how many of us would have the courage to lay down our lives for our principles? Probably, not many. I hope I would, but I have no idea; and I’m in no hurry to find out. I wouldn’t be too critical of the new Charlie Hebdo editor without walking a mile in his shoes. Yes, capitulation means the terrorists have won in this instance, but who are we to lay that burden on the editor and staff at Charlie Hebdo? It’s easy to criticize them behind the safety of key board and computer screen, but it’s quite another thing to be the ones in the line of fire. While their decision in this regard may be unfortunate, it is theirs to make. They probably just don’t want to get killed; a sentiment I can easily appreciate. Neither do I, so I cut them a little slack on this one.

“Courage is not the absence of fear; courage is action despite fear.” — US Marines.

The most courageous thing the editor of Charlie Hebdo could have done is stand up to intimidation and carry on, regardless of the actions of those who would intimidate and terrorize. These people, who stand up in the face of fear, are the ones we call heroes. This editor has shown us which type he is, unfortunately.

What type will we be, when the time comes? Will we cave in to intimidation, pressure, and terrorism? Or will we stand, regardless? Think carefully — it may cost your life!

The tragedy in all this is not that Charlie Hebdo have surrendered to the Islamic blasphemy laws we all have to endure, but that nobody seems to give a damn. Press coverage has been marginal, there is little to no social media discussion of the matter, all the while the mainstream media are pumping out articles telling us all how Islamophobic we all are, and how we should be more tolerant of Islam.

Yes the terrorists have won. They win in Canada when Trudeau the lesser will not agree they do barbaric things. Bill Elder refers to gun control which would simply help terrorists in Canada. Deb Graupner is correct about not criticizing those who rule over you, that explains the media party coverage of child Trudeau.

Some people get more frightened than others, with that said I cannot understand why someone would change who they are or what they believe in order to appease someone else. If my point of view upsets you then challenge me in the right way, if you use violence of any sorts then I will stop listening to what you have to say. Challenging someone’s point of view is a democratic right to the people and anyone who tries to stop that with violence has no business being in a free democratic country. Can you imagine the anarchy in the streets if everyone used violence to get their point across. You need to confront that behaviour in order to stop it, or ignore it.

TO LEECOOPER – Since meeting Ezra Levant during his Edmonton Emergency Town-Hall meeting June of this year I learned this guy really isn’t as bad as most Edmonton lefties claim him to be. He’s approachable, polite and unlike Stephan Harper and the local Marxist Leninist who’s complete disregard for freedom of the press should serve as a warning for people who love thier freedom, Ezra would be the first to defend it. Not only did Ezra allow me to cover his Town-Hall meeting as a citizen news reporter, he insisted!

He also allows free thought expressed on his news website The Rebel Media on his comment’s page. This has helped get more attention to news stories I’ve covered in Edmonton and published on YouTube. Not as easy to do with other corporate news media like the Huffington Post, National Post and the CBC whose editors would censor certain comments that don’t fall in line with thier editorial agendas. Ezra Levant’s The Rebel Media is a breath of fresh air for this lefty who still appreciates his right to practice freedom of the press in Edmonton. SEEEDITORIALCARTOON OF EZRA: at Active Citizenship – Free News Sharing – http://www.ciactivist.org/

I can’t say as I blame them Ezra – in a country which is essentially all a “no gun zone” the terrorist is in control because his victims are disarmed by the state and made and kept helpless by a state which cannot protect them and forbids them to protect themselves. French society has to shed years of self-destructive socialist qualms before it is ready to tackle terrorists on equal ground.

I would think wisdom may be more stronger than courage. With regards to Charlie Hebdo there is no courage in disrespecting other people’s religious beliefs – I am not Charlie Hebdo – I AM Canadian respecting others! Active Citizen – Free News Sharing YouTube: Edmonton Memorials, Rallies and Vigils – https://youtu.be/6vPOfX68NYQ